On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:47:27AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 10/06/17(Sat) 08:35, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:37:44PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > why do you have to specify 0.0.0.0 *and* dynaddr? > > [...] > > Regardless, you probably *do* want a dummy address. An address is needed > > in order to add a dummy default route which will be updated once the pppoe > > interface comes up (more details forthcoming in my reply to naddy's > > question). > > So why not fix the problem? How many years are we going to continue > to add workaround for p2p interfaces? > > I send a diff last year to start doing that: > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=146539593821612&w=2 > > Since nobody jumped in the boat and I already have ETOOMANYTHING to do > I dropped the diff. >
That's cool. But I don't think it conflicts with the change I'm trying to make. Does it? My diff changes how userland enables/disables dynamic address configuration, and removes the need to configure a specific magic address. sppp(4) is messing with address and routes in the same way, regardless.
